Ranbir Singh @Pappu @ Anr vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 1235 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Judgment reserved on:04.03.2014
                                  Judgment delivered on:07.03.2014
+      CRL.A.51-52/2006
       RANBIR SINGH @PAPPU @ ANR.              ..... Appellants
                       Through Mr.Anirudh Yadav, Adv.

                             Versus
       STATE                                             .... Respondent
                             Through   Mr.Navin K. Jha, APP.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order

of sentence dated 20.12.2005 & 21.12.2005 respectively wherein

appellants Ranbir Singh @ Pappu and Rajesh @ Kala had been

convicted under Sections 147/148/186/332/333/342/353 of the IPC. The

charge-sheet had been filed against four persons but the other two

persons namely Sunil and Dayanand stood acquitted.

2 Both the accused/appellants had been sentenced to undergo RI for

a period of 1 year for the offence under Sections 147/148 of the IPC; RI

for 2 months for offence under Section 186 of the IPC; for offence under

Section 332/333, they were sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to

pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; for the offence under Section 342 of the

IPC, they had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; for the

offence under Section 353, they had been sentenced to undergo RI for 1

years. There was a further direction that in default of payment of fine,

the convicts would undergo RI for 3 months. All the sentences were to

run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. had been

granted to the appellants.

3 Record shows that on 02.09.1997, a police party comprising of

special staff, south-west district were on patrolling duty and had

proceeded from Dhaula Kuan to Najafgarh. The parties comprised of

HC Anand Prakash (PW-2), constable Abhay Singh (PW-1), constable

Vijender (PW-12) and constable Ashok Kumar (PW-8). At about 11

PM, they reached the Dhasa bus stand, Najafgarh. A secret information

was received that Rajesh and Ranbir were loading liquor in their truck;

on receipt of this information, the police party proceeded towards Prem

Nagar; a truck was spotted lying parked in a vacant plot. Accused Pappu

and Rajesh were present there. Liquor was being unloaded from the

truck and load into a Tata vehicle; members of the raiding party felt that

they would be outnumbered by the accused; they accordingly thought of

going back for reinforcement. In the meanwhile, the accused saw the

police party and did not allow them to escape. The accused persons

exhorted them; Pappu and Rajesh were accompanied by other

companions. PW-2 managed to escape; he gave the information about

the incident at the local police station of Najafgarh. This information

was passed on to SI Bhagwati Prasad (PW-14) who reached the spot.

The miscreants had in the meanwhile ran away along with the truck and

tempo. In this incident, PW-8, PW-12 and PW-1 sustained injuries.

They were medically examined at the Safdarjung Hospital. The MLC of

PW-8 (ExPW-4/2) revealed a fracture; his injury was opined to be

grievous. The accused persons were arrested on 08.09.1997.

4 The prosecution in support of its case had examined 14 witnesses.

As noted supra, PW-1, PW-8 & PW-12 had sustained injuries. Grievous

injury had been sustained by PW-8. He has on oath deposed that while

he was on patrolling duty with the other members of the raiding party

i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-12, they saw liquor being loaded and unloaded

at Prem Nagar from a truck into tempo; accused Rajesh and Pappu were

present there; they were accompanied by other persons also. They

spotted the police party and threatened them. They brought out dandas

and lathis from the truck and assaulted the complainant party as a result

of which PW-8 sustained injuries on his face, arm and legs. Meanwhile

when PW-2 who had managed to escape reached back along with other

police officers, the accused persons fled away. PW-1 did not attribute

any role to the other two accused i.e. Dayanand and Sunil. In his cross-

examination, PW-8 had stuck to his stand. He could not be discredited.

He reiterated that after sustaining injuries, he felt unconscious and did

not know what had happened thereafter.

5 The MLC of PW-8 had been proved as Ex.PW-4/2 through Dr.

Sita Lakshmi (PW-4). There were injuries noted on his right thigh and

right leg. He was referred to the X-ray department for further

investigation. His X-ray plate has been proved as Ex.PW-4/5. The chest

X-ray was conducted and his right inferior orbital margin was noted to

be broken. The opinion on his injuries was thus noted to be grievous.

6 PW-1 had also sustained injuries in this incident. He has

corroborated the version of PW-8 and has specifically attributed a role

to Pappu and Rajesh who were present along with 10-15 other persons

and had given merciless beatings with lathis to PW-12, PW-8 and to

himself. In his cross-examination, he admitted that it was dark at the

time of incident; he knew the accused Rajesh and Pappu although he did

not know the other co-accused Dayanand and Sunil.

7 PW-12 has also deposed on the same lines as PW-1 and PW-8. He

has reiterated that the accused persons i.e. Rajesh and Pappu were armed

which lathis and started beating them. In fact PW-12 has also attributed

a role to Dayanand and Sunil but as noted supra, the aforenoted persons

have been acquitted. PW-12 had deposed that Ranbir had given a lathi

blow on his forehead and his other colleagues were also beaten by other

accused. The MLC of PW-12 was proved as Ex.PW-4/A. Bruises were

noted upon his person. X-ray report Ex.PW-4/4 had evidenced no bony

injury. The injuries on his persons were opined as blunt. He was

discharged on the same day.

8 PW-2 who was also a part of the raiding party had managed to

escape and he had informed the local police station i.e. PS Najafgarh.

PW-2 had identified both the accused persons correctly as part of the

team who had attacked his colleagues.

9 The Investigating Officer (PW-14) on receiving information in

the local police station from PW-2 had reached the spot where he found

the injured i.e. PW-8 and PW-2 lying at the spot. The PCR van had also

reached the spot and injured were removed to the hospital. The lathis

and dandas were seized from the spot and were taken into possession

vide Ex.PW-2/DB; the site plan (Ex.PW-2/DA) was prepared. It was on

the basis of the aforenoted evidence which has been collected by the

prosecution that the accused persons were convicted for the aforenoted

offences and sentenced accordingly.

10 On behalf of the appellants, arguments had been addressed in

details. On merit, there is two-fold submission. The first submission is

that no specific role has been attributed to the accused persons; attention

has been drawn to the versions of PW-8 and PW-1 to substantiate this

submission. To support this submission, reliance has also been placed

upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar Vs. State

decided on 20.11.2009 in Crl. Appeal No.255/1999; submission being

that where in that case also, the injured had come into the witness box

and did not speak a word about use of danda by the appellant, benefit of

doubt had been given in favour of the appellant. The second submission

on merits is that DD No. 3A which had been recorded in the local police

station pursuant to which the investigation of this incident has

commenced has not been proved in the absence of which benefit of

doubt must accrue in favour of the appellant. To support this

submission, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Crl. Appeal No.37/1994 Gendial and others Vs.

the State of M.P. In the alternate arguments have been addressed on

sentence. It is pointed out that the offence relates to the year 1997 and it

is more that 1- ½ decade old; much time has gone-bye and keeping in

view that the fact no criminal antecedent is attached to the appellant,

leniency has been prayed for in the sentence and to support this

submission reliance has been placed upon a bench of this Court in

Krishan Kumar Vs. State decided on 19.08.2013 in Crl. Appeal

No.135/2004 where on the period already undergone which was a period

of 9 months, the appellant although convicted under Section 333/308

had been sentenced accordingly. Reliance has also been placed upon a

judgment of the Apex Court reported as Krishan Lal & Anr. Vs. State in

Crl. Appeal No.1102/2002 decided on 10.02.2009 where also the

conviction under Section 333 of the IPC had been maintained and the

sentence of 2 years had been reduced to the period already undergone.

In this judgment, however what was the period undergone by the

appellant is not borne out.

11 Arguments have been refuted by the learned APP for the State. It

is pointed out that police personnel have been injured and on no count,

on merit, does the impugned judgment call for any interference. It is

pointed out that the versions of PW-8, PW-1 and PW-12 coupled with

the testimony of PW-2 and PW-12 are coherent and cogent; they are

supported by the medical evidence which is in the nature of the MLC of

the injured. PW-8 had suffered a fracture. In case the appellants are

allowed to scot free, a wrong message would go in the society and in

this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant cannot be

disturbed. On point of sentence, it is pointed out that the appellants has

only undergone a period of 20 days and keeping in the time period,

leniency in the sentence should not be awarded.

12 Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.

13 On merits, the conviction of the appellants does not call for any

interference. Testimony of PW-8 who had received grievous injuries in

this incident is cogent, coherent and credible. There is no reason

whatsoever to disbelieve his oral version which is fully supported by the

MLC and X-ray report which shows that he has suffered a fracture in

orbital region. His version has been fully corroborated by the testimony

of other members of patrolling duty who were also a part of the incident

and in fact, they had received injuries i.e. PW-1 and PW-12. Their

versions for no reason can be disbelieved. The MLC of PW-12 is also on

record. This medical document besides the fact has been un-assailed is

fully corroborative of the oral testimonies of other members. PW-2 had

managed to escape. He had also identified the accused persons as the

persons who had attached his colleagues. Specific role has been

attributed to the appellants by all the eye-witness i.e. PW1, PW8 and

PW12. As far as the DD entry is concerned PW-10 had come into

witness box and had deposed that the record including this DD entry had

been destroyed; however non-proof of the DD would not discredit the

otherwise well proven case of the prosecution; it is not as if the incident

has been denied. Thus the judgments of Naresh Kumar and Gendial

(supa) relied upon by the defence counsel do not come to his aid.

14 In this background, the conviction of the appellants for having

caused a grievous injury to a public servant while they were on duty

cannot be disturbed; it has to be sustained. The conviction of the

appellants under the aforenoted sections is maintained.

15 However on the point of sentence, this Court is inclined to take a

lenient view. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is RI of

2 years which is for the offence under Sections 332/333 of the IPC.

Cumulative fine of Rs.1,000/- has also been imposed. This Court has

been informed that the fine has since been paid. The offence is more

than 14-15 years old. The accused were young at the time when the

incident had occurred. They were in early 20's. The sentence of the

appellants had in fact been suspended by the trial Court itself in order

that an appeal could be filed in the higher Court. It was suspended by

this Court on 20.01.2006. The appellants had remained in custody as

under trial for about 20 days.

16 In this background, the sentence of the appellant is modified and

they are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months. The sentence

of fine shall remain unaltered. Bail bonds of the appellants are

accordingly cancelled. They be taken into custody to serve the

remaining sentence.

17     Appeal disposed off.

                                       INDERMEET KAUR, J

MARCH , 2014

A